james1071

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2021/02/04/murr-f04.html

This is the best description of what it was all about from the persepctive of Craig Murray.

Well, that's not a hard connection to make, when you know about the role of the First Minister of Scotland in the prosecution of her predecessor, Alex Salmond. If you were also to know the identity of one of the accusers, which cannot be reported, but is well known in Scotland, you would find the connection even easier.

What is it that you think he did? He was accused of 'jigsaw identification' but, to my knowledge, no-offending words have been produced.

In contrast, several newspapers have reported information which revealed the identity of one or more accusers, but were not prosecuted.

It is exactly what is happening.

No, 'printing money' does not mean physically printing banknotes.

'Printing money' has nothing to do with printing bank notes.

It's not hard to get a doctor's attention when he knows you will provide him with golf days and holidays, if he plays his cards right.

Agree with you on that.

He struck me as completely oblivious to what was likely to have been a complete lack of interest.

His approach was never going to work, as doctors do not spend their time evaluating drugs in the way that he imagined.

He had not the slightest idea of how doctors prescribe drugs.

The typical doctor has minimal training in evaluating medicines - that is not their job.

They defer to so-called opinion-leaders, who are the experts on particular diseases.

These people are the targets of drug companies' marketing - think scientific conferences in 5 star hotels in exotic locations.

The cost of influencing them would be millions.

So,the author was barking up the wrong tree.

That's not to say that he didn't have something, but had no idea how to market it.

So, the question is how much margin they needed for the position - long the future, short TAS.

Not a lawyer - think the main issue will be whether the companies are shown to have manipulated safety testing.

If not, then it will be a case of bad rules allowing a bad product to have been used.

Strange country where the media says who won the election. Elsewhere, there is an official announcement.

I see - you want the CPI to reflect your personal situation.

it is revenge of the nerds sniff of power and the bullied become the bullies

When there is a sudden change, there are winners and losers. The losers will complain and try to reverse the change. That is all.

Yes - there seems to be an assumption that they have jobs until the money runs out.

You don't need to be a lawyer to understand what this is all about and it certainly isn't hindsight, as you have suggested.

The reason why the IRS are challenging FB is that Apple's Irish tax arrangements became public and were very embarrassing to the US authorities, which were revealed not to be applying US law.

Now, to the matter of hindsight.

The essential point is that the transactions have to be a sham to work.

There is precisely no point in selling IP from a US subsidiary to one in Ireland at a fair price. That would just trigger an immediate taxable event in the US for no benefit whatsoever.

The transaction is by design intended to sell IP at a large undervalue and the game was to satisfy the US and Irish authorities, both of which were happy to play along.

Maybe I am wrong on this, but I doubt that you have studied economics or have any idea what economists think.

The people that you are talking about are effectively lobbyists - policy entrepreneurs is the phrase, who appear in the media advocating for policies that benefit their clients.

I read this story and found it interesting to notice how the author seemed not to have any perspective other than his own. He seemed to regard himself as central to the company, when in reality he was just one of many employees, who had been hired to do a job. Those hiring him seemed to be interested in the sale of the company and securing their own positions, which they appear to have managed well, by running a sham department, that they could present as being a success.

That's not much of a rejection, why not reject it more than a tad?

Instead you have accepted that you were some kind of idiot and are inviting me to demonstrate my own superior levels of idiocy, which is completely idiotic, isn't it?

What kind of person does that - seeking out complete idiots online?

Listen to me, Mr Sad.

Once you have rights to your code (and use a lawyer), you should use it for the benefit of yourself.

Open sourcing it is your decision, based on what's good for you.

Of course you are clueless. Only a complete idiot would accept code, of no obvious value, that he had himself written as payment for two years of work. Not only that, but you are now going to waste further time and, possibly money, while your co-founder recruits another idiot to work for free. No, doubt, you will reject this interpretation of events, but that is what has happened. You might get a job (hopefully paid) where you use your skills, but selling your code for money does not seem very likely. Perhaps I have got this wrong, but that is how this situation appears to me.

The answer to your question is almost certainly no. This is because credit ratings are not based on payment history, or anything as simple as that. Instead, credit analysts have to understand how what can be complicated legal structures work.

It does not matter whether the Russian economy was booming or in deep trouble - the issue that is being discussed is the looting of assets owned by the state.

Oil companies in the UK are subject to: Ring Fenced Corporation Tax Supplementary Charge Petroleum Revenue Tax.

They are much more heavily taxed than other companies.

It would cost billions to test the various drugs that you mentioned.

What Americans call 'the free market' is a system where there are few restrictions on what a person can buy or sell. It extends to their political system, where politicans sell policies in return for campaign contributions.

What you said about the water companies is not correct. They are regulated on the basis of price - the regulator sets a pricing formula for the industry RPI + X (i.e. X is the annual price increase above inflation).

There are no caps on profit.

The reason why companies carry large amounts of debt is that debt finance is much cheaper than equity. Given that a utility has stable cashflows, it makes sense for it to use a high proportion of debt finance.

I haven't read beyond the first page, but do know a bit about the US drug industry.

Briefly, since the late 1980s, the market for prescription drugs has evolved from one where pricing was close to list price, to one where pretty much everyone gets a large discount.

(By everyone I mean any kind of insurer or bulk buyer)

The effect is that the market has become completely lacking in transparency, as the discounts are not public.

Also, in many cases, the discounts end up in the hands of middle men, such as Pharmacy Benefit Managers or Insurers.

That suits them very nicely, as these discounts account for a large part of their profit and are hidden, unlike their premiums and insurance plans.